Standing Committee B

[Mr. Eric Illsley in the Chair]

Criminal Justice Bill

Resolved, 
 That the Committee recommends that the Order of the House of 4th December 2002 (Criminal Justice Bill (Programme)) be further varied as follows: 
 Consideration and Third Reading 
 (1) Paragraphs (4), (5) and (6) of the Order (Consideration and Third Reading) shall be omitted. 
(2) Proceedings on consideration and Third Reading shall be concluded in three days and shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on the last of those three days.—[Mr. Heppell.] New Clause 27 Joint and several liability for death or serious injury of a child

New Clause 27 - Joint and several liability for death or serious injury of a child

'.—(1) In the circumstance where a child suffers death or serious injury while two people have responsibility for it, and it is not possible to establish which party was responsible for the death or injury, the following shall apply and both parties shall be jointly liable to prosecution. 
 (2) After section 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 (c.12), there shall be inserted the following: 
 ''Section 1A—Illtreatment etc. of children 
 If any person who has attained the age of sixteen years and has responsibility for any child or young person under that age, wilfully assaults, illtreats, neglects, abandons or exposes him or causes or procures him to be assaulted, illtreated, neglected, abandoned, or exposed, in a manner likely to cause him unnecessary suffering or injury to health (including injury to or loss of sight, or hearing, or limb, or organ of the body, and any mental derangement), and as a consequence of such conduct the child or young person dies or suffers serious injury, that person shall be guilty of an offence, and shall be liable on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for any term not exceeding fourteen years.'' 
(3) Where in any proceedings against a person who has attained the age of sixteen years and who has responsibility for any child or young person under that age, for an offence of murder, manslaughter, assault or an offence contrary to sections 1 or 1A of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, upon such child or young person evidence is given that the accused at any time before he was charged with the offence, on being questioned under caution by a constable trying to discover whether or by whom the offence had been committed, failed to mention any fact which in the circumstances existing at the time the accused could reasonably have been expected to mention when so questioned, charged or informed, as the case may be, subsection (4) below applies. 
 (4) Where this subsection applies— 
 (a) the court, in determining whether there is a case to answer; and 
 (b) the court or jury, in determining whether the accused is guilty of the offence charged, 
 may draw such inferences from the failure as appear proper. 
 (5) Where in any proceedings against a person who has attained the age of sixteen years and who has responsibility for any child or young person under that age, for an offence of murder, manslaughter, assault or an offence contrary to sections 1 or 1A 
of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, upon such child or young person evidence is given that the accused at any time before he was charged with the offence, on being questioned under caution by a constable trying to discover whether or by whom the offence had been committed, made a statement which incriminated any coaccused as to that offence, that statement shall be evidence against the coaccused in any trial or other proceedings in connection with that or a related offence.'.—[Vera Baird.] 
 Brought up, and read the First time. 
 Question proposed [this day], That the clause be read a Second time. 
 Question again proposed.

Desmond Turner: I will not detain the Committee much longer. I warn hon. Members against the trap that the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) almost lurched into of thinking that to kill a baby is less serious than to murder an adult, and that it can be excused by extenuating circumstances. We must be careful not to go too far down that road, although it may be one reason why the legal profession has got itself into a Gordian knot over the issue. The time has come to cut that knot, not only in the interests of justice but to ensure public confidence in justice. I strongly urge the Minister to take whatever steps are necessary to translate into urgent action the strong desire that we know exists in the Home Office to address the problem.
 The Bill is the obvious vehicle for achieving that. Failing that, one hopes that the issue will be addressed soon in another Bill. New clause 27 is not perfect, but it is a practical and workable method of addressing a problem that has been with us for far too long. I am interested to hear what the Minister has to say.

Hilary Benn: I am genuinely pleased that new clause 27 has been tabled, and I am grateful to those of my hon. Friends who put their names to it, for the simple reason that it is evident from the debate that it covers an extremely important area of the law. This issue has proved intractable for far too long, and the Government are committed to dealing with it.
 It is wholly wrong that those who abuse children, and particularly those implicated in their killing, should be able to play the system and get away with such crimes simply because it cannot be established beyond reasonable doubt which part each individual played. It goes to the heart of public confidence, which my hon. Friends the Members for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) and for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner) mentioned. 
 As we have heard, we are talking about circumstances where the police cannot find out which of a number of suspects—most commonly two—committed the crime. Too often, when one person shelters the other, both escape justice. We cannot allow that to continue. I have listened with great interest to the debate, and I am grateful to hon. Members for their contributions. There is a lot in the new clause to which the Government are attracted. 
 However, as the debate has clearly illustrated—this is why it has been such a good debate—we are dealing with an extremely complex and difficult aspect of the law. That is why the problem has been intractable for some time. 
 We must ensure that we get reform of the law right, and in explaining why I shall touch briefly on two issues that came up in the debate. First, there is nothing in the new clause that would prevent an adverse inference being decisive on guilt, a point that has been raised in the debate. That raises issues relating to European convention rights; to get things right, we must provide suitable safeguards to ensure compatibility. 
 Secondly, the drawing of inference under the new clause is based a failure to mention facts that one could reasonably expect to have been mentioned. I tell my hon. Friends—I think that this was acknowledged during the debate—that the provisions might not be the most effective way to tackle such cases, because by definition those cases suffer from a lack of evidence. Often it will not be possible for the prosecution to show the facts that they contend the defendants have not mentioned. If inferences are to be drawn, it may be more effective to draw them from a general failure to explain the circumstances of the injury to the child, rather than from a failure to mention specific facts. 
 However, we all recognise that further work is necessary to get a solution that delivers the results that every member of the Committee wants. Hon. Members have alluded to the work of the NSPCC and to the fact that the Law Commission is working on proposals that will contribute enormously to the debate. The nub of the issue is that we need to take account of the Law Commission's work. As we have heard, it published an informal document in December, and we understand that a further document will be published in the near future. I also understand that the Law Commission's thinking has evolved between publishing the document in December and preparing the document that we are promised. Given those circumstances, it is only right and proper to wait and see what the Law Commission publishes. 
 We should ensure that a copy of today's debate is passed to the Law Commission, so that as part of its work it can consider the comments that my hon. Friends and other hon. Members have made. I also give my hon. Friends the absolute assurance that the Government want to take action on the issue. We are committed to legislating on the matter, once we have found the right solution. We have made progress, but we are not quite there yet. That is why we are keen to see the Law Commission's further views, which it has promised it will publish shortly. We will then proceed with legislation as quickly as possible, either in the Bill if there is still time, or in a future Bill, because we are committed to making a difference on that aspect of the law. 
 In light of those clear assurances of the Government's determination to act, I hope that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) will withdraw the motion. I assure my hon. Friends that we shall return to the issue.

Vera Baird: I am grateful to the Minister for his words. I should like to compliment the participants in the debate and thank them for their help with the issue, which is not straightforward. My hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham made a strong contribution about public confidence, and his argument is extremely important.
 I compliment the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) on his common-sense, lay analysis of the situation which gave me a good deal of support. I echo the question that he asked towards the end of his contribution: if not now, when? I appreciate that the Minister has indicated that the answer is ''as soon as possible''. He knows that he can rely on not being allowed to let that drift for very long. ''Possible'' is a term of which I shall remind him. 
 I compliment my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown on his contribution, and particularly on his references to clause 21. I apologise if I took rather longer to open the debate this morning than some members of the Committee may have thought appropriate. It is not a straightforward issue, and it was important to set out at some length not only the problems but the groping towards a solution. It was also slightly less perfect than I might have hoped because I had no foreknowledge that my hon. Friend's clock was not working. [Interruption.] I sense a defamation action coming on. 
 Finally, I thank the Law Commission, which has been as helpful as it could have been, both in allowing me to know what its deliberations were and in reserving its thoughts on, and pointers towards, what was coming until it felt able to make them public because it was satisfied that the Home Office had received its submission. 
 I had intended to answer some of the points raised by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), but he is not here. I make no point about his absence, but he summed up by saying that his only objection was to subsection (5), which gave him the heeby-jeebies. That is a difficult concept to argue against; consequently I shall not try to do so.

Humfrey Malins: It is remiss of me not to have mentioned that my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield cannot be with us until about 2.50 pm and, through me, sends his apologies to the Committee; no discourtesy is intended. I shall pass on any comments that the hon. and learned Lady makes.

Vera Baird: I am grateful. The answers would have involved another trawl through a certain amount of legalism and in the absence of the hon. Member for Beaconsfield there is not much point in inflicting that on the rest of the Committee. I am content, up to a point, with the assurances that have been given.
 Dr. Turner: All that I want to add to my hon. and learned Friend's comments is to ask the Minister whether his earnest endeavours will result in the issue's being addressed in new clauses tabled during the remaining, fairly long passage of the Bill or in an almost equally imminent Bill that can bear it. A nod will satisfy me.

Hilary Benn: If I may intervene, I am happy to tell my hon. Friend that if we can find a solution on which there is general agreement, and if the Bill remains under consideration, we would address the matter in the Bill. However, the Whips and others would not let me give an assurance about future legislative vehicles. I meant what I said about seeking to legislate as soon as we have a policy on which we have all agreed and with which the Law Commission is happy.

Desmond Turner: I thank my hon. Friend, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
 Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 28 - Preparation of prosecution cases

'No criminal case shall be listed for trial unless the presiding judge or magistrate is satisfied that the case file was complete and available to the prosecution at least 48 hours in advance.'.—[Mr. Heath.]
 Brought up, and read the First time.

David Heath: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
 This is a modest attempt to assist the Lord Chancellor's Department in doing something about the conduct of trials and the enormous waste of time, resource and money that is inherent in the failures of the present system. The Department estimated in 1999 that £41 million a year is wasted on cracked and ineffective trials in the magistrates courts alone. A cracked trial is one in which a case is concluded without a trial, and an ineffective trial is one in which a hearing is cancelled on the day it was due to go ahead. 
 I know that efforts have been made, through the Lord Chancellor's Department, to deal with some of the issues, not least of which is the instruction to the magistrates courts committees, while they still exist, to collect information on the reasons for trials not going ahead as planned. The efforts have not yet been desperately effective. An awful lot of trials still do not proceed on the day for which they are planned. Indeed, that happened in 27,500 trials in magistrates courts alone in the three months from April to June 2002. There are several reasons for that, and I do not mean to suggest that the sole reason is inadequacy in the preparation of the prosecution case. There are perfectly genuine reasons for trials not to proceed, and many others that are due to such eventualities as a witness's change of mind, new evidence coming to light or difficulties involving the defendant. 
 Mr. James Clappison (Hertsmere): It would be helpful if the hon. Gentleman could break down the figure for trials that do not proceed into those that are adjourned and those that are disposed of otherwise, perhaps through a guilty plea.

David Heath: I have those figures somewhere, but I apologise to the hon. Gentleman because I cannot find in my notes that breakdown into different categories. I shall have to let him know later. I had prepared that figure, because it is obviously relevant to what we are discussing.
 I know that in a relatively small but significant proportion of cases trials do not proceed on the day arranged because the prosecution case is not ready. The prosecution asks for an adjournment or for the case not to proceed on that day. That has an effect on everyone else involved in the case. Their time is wasted, and that is a cost. Police officers called to give evidence are taken from the districts that they are supposed to be policing, to hang around to no useful purpose at a magistrates court which, given that more and more magistrates courts are closing, is likely to be remote from that area. People in custody are transported, leading to the costs of transport and escort duty. Witnesses who are required to attend on one day and then, because the case is adjourned, to return on another, are severely inconvenienced. That should not happen, because they may have business and personal commitments and may be putting themselves to great trouble to help the judicial system as a witness. That may also apply to victims, who may time after time anticipate the resolution of the case, only to find that it does not happen. 
 The modest proposal in the new clause is intended to deal with a small aspect of what I have described. There should be a clear duty on the prosecuting authorities to prepare a case sufficiently early for their counsel properly to read and assess it. Their counsel should not have to go to court without having had full access to the relevant material. The court would be brought into the process and there would be a clear relationship between the investigatory authority—usually the police—the Crown Prosecution Service and the lawyer who acts as prosecutor. Together, they should be sure that they are ready to proceed. If they were not, there would be time for the court list to be reordered for that day and for people to make other arrangements, so that the minimum amount of time would be wasted on a pointless exercise. 
 I do not pretend that the new clause would deal with all potential delays, nor do I suggest that the prosecution are the main offenders. Indeed, the statistics show that they are not. However, it is the one area that is entirely within the province of the state—that is in the broadest sense—to order. Anything that would promote a better ordering of cases and of court procedures that are directly under the control of the prosecuting authorities must be a good idea, and I commend the new clause to the Committee.

Humfrey Malins: The hon. Gentleman has drawn an important matter to the attention of the Committee, although I suspect that he would be the first to accept
 that the wording is not satisfactory. He rightly began by saying that the new clause was a modest attempt to assist the Lord Chancellor's Department. I should like to expand a little on that and offer some practical advice on an important and troubling problem.
 The new clause draws attention to cases not being ready for trial and thus, for one reason or another, not being disposed of on the day in question. It is important to recognise that we are dealing with two court systems, that different rules apply, and that one is much more efficient than the other. I shall deal first with the Crown courts. 
 When a case is committed by a magistrates court for trial in the Crown court, the practice has grown up in recent years of telling the defendant that he is committed to the Crown court for trial and that he will appear for a plea and directions hearing on a certain date. That is an excellent way forward. Plea and direction hearings in the Crown court are now available to magistrates who commit cases to the Crown court. There are custody dates and bail dates, so the magistrates will be able to tell the defendant that he is committed to the Crown court—shall we say Southwark Crown court—and that he will appear there for a plea and directions hearing on a certain date, which is normally five or six week ahead. 
 The purpose of a plea and directions hearing is to handle outstanding issues and to ensure that there is no impediment to a trial taking place. The defendant will invariably appear, as will his or her counsel, counsel for the Crown and the judge. The judge will go through a pro forma in the presence of counsel, and run through a series of questions. For example, he will want to know how long the trial will take, whether issues of law will be involved, whether alibi evidence will be adduced and whether witnesses have been warned. He will also want to know whether counsel are ready and whether any points of law are likely to arise in the trial. Those are all nuts and bolts issues, which the barristers and the judge deal with at the plea and directions hearings. 
 If the defence counsel is not satisfied that the Crown has made adequate disclosure, for example, that is the moment to tell the judge, ''We have not had a copy of the video,'' or ''We have not had a copy of the interview statement.'' The judge will then make directions orders, saying, ''Supply a copy in five days.'' In my anecdotal experience, the trial is much more likely to be effective because the outstanding issues will have been sorted out. 
 That all goes to show that, whatever legislation we pass, the efficiency of the criminal justice system is, to a huge extent, down to the day-to-day handling of the issues. When Crown court trials take place, issues such as warning witnesses, or which witnesses are required, will have been sorted out. Occasionally, such trials will crack, but that is normally because defendants plead guilty at the last moment—that saves time and probably money, too, in the long run—or because they go absent and do not answer bail. However, trials do not usually crack as the result of an administrative 
 hiccup, and that is because there is a plea and directions hearing. Contrast that with the state of affairs in our magistrates courts, where, I am afraid to say, the position is very different. 
 It is important to distinguish between the categories of reasons why cases do not take place. For example, someone may be charged with a matter as straightforward as driving without due care and attention. He may make a not guilty plea to the court by letter, and a trial date may be fixed. Various factors, such as a late plea of guilty, cannot affect that. There are, however, various reasons why trials do not go ahead. Sometimes, cases are dismissed without evidence being given; sometimes they are adjourned. However, it is important for the Minister to realise that cases are being sent for trial every day in the London courts, and there must be 20 or 30 magistrates or district judges courts centres in the London area. 
 There is no universal plea and directions hearing system in the magistrates courts. If a defendant is charged with an offence of actual bodily harm and pleads not guilty, the court tries to fix a trial date. It says, ''Not guilty. Right, we'll have the trial in this court.'' Everyone agrees, and the court tries to fix a date. In practice, the magistrate will ask the prosecuting and defence counsels how long the case will last, and they may agree that it is a two-hour case. He will then ask whether there are any dates to avoid. Have the Crown witnesses or the police supplied dates when they cannot come to court? The answer is often that no one knows which dates should be avoided. That brings us to the first bit of advice for the Lord Chancellor's Department, and I hope that those who are taking notes can follow this through. One must ensure that prosecutors have in their files the dates to avoid so that they can give them to the court straight away. 
 A date is fixed, but the trouble is that it could be two or three months ahead, and very little work may be done in the interim. I say to the Minister in passing—this is something of a mild sideswipe—that the more local magistrates courts are closed, the further people will have to travel for their trials and the more cases will be adjourned or will not be effective. However, let us look at the reasons why they are not effective. We fast forward two months. The case of actual bodily harm is set for trial. It is called for 2 pm. The district judge or the magistrates are ready to hear it. What has happened? There are reasons why the case will not be effective. The defendant may not turn up. Very little can be done about that, except that—and this is my second bit of advice—it may be no bad thing if in future defendants who are bailed to a trial date in a magistrates court are obliged to report the night before at their local police station to ensure their presence in the area at the time of trial. Otherwise we may find that a defendant has not turned up and not answered his or her bail. One can ask the defence counsel what the problem is, and the answer will be, ''We have been trying to get hold of the defendant for some days, but we cannot, because his mobile is switched off. We 
 wrote a fortnight ago but have heard nothing.'' Insisting that people answer their bail the day before their trial may help. 
 Much more common is witnesses not turning up. It can sometimes be a defence witness; it can often be a Crown witness. Defence witnesses may not turn up because they have not been given adequate warning by the defence team. More significantly, it is often the Crown witnesses who do not turn up because they have not been warned. 
 The district judge or magistrate will ask whether the witnesses were warned. ''We are not sure,'' says counsel for the defence or prosecutor, ''That is the job of the criminal justice unit.'' I have spent years trying to find out what the criminal justice unit is—I believe it to be a figment of somebody's imagination. I have never met anybody who works for it.

Dominic Grieve: I believe that the criminal justice unit is a semi-retired police officer located in each court.

Humfrey Malins: My hon. Friend says that, but I have searched Bow Street and Camberwell Green and cannot find these people. I am being a little flippant. There is no direct chain of command. Prosecuting counsel can wash his or her hands of the problem by saying, ''That is a matter for the criminal justice unit.'' Criminal justice unit staff are sometimes retired police officers or civilians. I do not know where they work—I have never seen them. However, in my experience they do not warn witnesses adequately. The days are gone when a policeman knocked witnesses' doors the night before a trial to ask whether they intended to go to court tomorrow. The criminal justice unit is a fundamental problem in the magistrates courts system. Day after day, magistrates and district judges return to their rooms at the end of the afternoon tearing their hair out at the inefficiencies of the criminal justice unit in not warning witnesses.
 Defence and Crown regularly make applications for an adjournment because of disclosure failures. The more complicated disclosure has become in the past few years, the more defence lawyers go on a fishing exercise. At the very last moment they ask for copies of documents that have no bearing on the issues before the court. 
 I have another piece of advice. It is becoming increasingly common for a defendant who is in custody not to be present in court because Securicor, or one of the other teams, has been unable to liaise with the prison adequately to get him to court. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome has some useful figures, but anecdotally, many more cases in the magistrates court are not effective compared with cases in the Crown court. That is a crying shame. The Minister will say that that is not right, but I know it to be the case. When asked, ''What are the prospects of your trials this afternoon being effective?'', any district judge will probably say that three out of five are not effective because of inefficiency. 
 What is the answer? I urge the Minister to take what I am about to say on board. It is an absolutely good idea that the practice used in the Crown court in relation to plea and directions hearings should be used much more in the magistrates court. Let us suppose that a trial date is to be fixed for two months' time in the magistrates court on, say, a case of actual bodily harm with three witnesses, a little disclosure here and there, and a possible videotape and other documents to be produced. It makes sense to insist that, say, two weeks before that trial date—a matter for the Minister and his colleagues—when perhaps an afternoon has been set aside, the advocates for the defence and the Crown are obliged either to appear in person briefly to say, or to certify to the court in writing so that it is on the file, that no outstanding issues could cause the trial to be vacated, and that if such issues arose they could be dealt with rapidly with a fortnight's notice or so. 
 I can think of no reason why the same disciplines and constraints that are applied in the Crown court through a plea and directions hearing should not be brought to bear in a magistrates court on a two or three-hour trial in an afternoon with counsel or solicitors on both sides. From time to time, district judges and magistrates of their own volition have, in effect, asked for a pre-trial review and say, when a seriously complicated case is coming up, to the advocates that they had better come in a fortnight before, when the case will be listed, but the defendant need not attend. The judge will have a little chat to both parties to ensure that they are absolutely ready, the witnesses have been warned and have not gone abroad, and they will not try to adjourn at the last moment. 
 Such a procedure is not set in statute. It is discretionary, depending on the court. Such matters do not arise often. If the Government and the Lord Chancellor's Department, in particular, focused hard on high-grade efficiency in the management of magistrates court cases, particularly by having a well in advance pre-trial review, a lot of the money that is wasted would not be. 
 I do not know whether the Minister could cause a letter to be sent to me about whether costs orders against the defence or the Crown are regularly made in the courts. My judgment is that courts are loth to make them and do not often take the robust view that should be taken. It is mainly a matter of efficiency, and the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome has done us a service by raising such problems. I hope that I have added to that service, and although obviously in its present form the new clause cannot be accepted, I hope that the Minister can assure us that he is taking active steps to improve a situation that at best is only satisfactory, and at worst—this is far too often the case—is completely unsatisfactory.

Hilary Benn: Like the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins), I am grateful to the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome for tabling the new clause. It has given us the opportunity to have a short but useful debate about the importance of better and earlier case preparation.
 For reasons that the hon. Gentleman outlined, the fundamental problem is that 40 per cent. of victims and witnesses attend court to give evidence, but are not called on the day in question. I can assist the hon. Member for Woking, who sought to compare the magistrates courts with the Crown court. The statistics for 2002 show that in the magistrates courts, 31 per cent., or 50,200, of the cases listed for trial were ineffective. In the Crown court, the figure was 23 per cent., or 12,600 cases. Although he is right that, in percentage terms, the problem is bigger in the magistrates courts, there is a problem in both.

Dominic Grieve: When the Minister says ''ineffective'', does he mean that the case does not take place, or that it takes place on that day in a form other than that which was expected? That is an important distinction.

Hilary Benn: I am sure it is, and I shall check on the definition in order to respond. In giving the figures, I wanted to illustrate that whatever the definition used, the problem affects both types of court. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome recognises that the new clause is a peg on which to hang a debate rather than something that could be put into effect, because it has a number of weaknesses. I shall not go into them now because I accept the spirit in which it is proposed. I shall write to the hon. Member for Woking about costs orders if the information is available.
 A criminal justice unit is, as the hon. Member for Beaconsfield indicated, an administrative unit in each police station that is responsible for warning witnesses. It is also responsible for co-ordinating the production of files for the Crown Prosecution Service. Glidewell recommended that those units work more closely and be co-located with the CPS. That is sensible in view of the comments that have been made. 
 In the White Paper, the Government announced the setting up of the case preparation project on a trilateral basis—involving the Home Office, the CPS and the Lord Chancellor's Department. It is designed to improve the preparation of cases by the parties and the court and to reduce the number of ineffective trials. 
 The hon. Member for Woking drew on his considerable experience to give us a short masterclass in the practicalities. He is right: this debate is not about the legislation that is in the Bill; it is about what is done daily, who communicates with whom, and how the system fits together effectively to deal with the problem that he has identified. I am sure that the officials will have taken a careful note of what he said. 
 The case preparation project, which is intended to address the matter, will pilot its proposals in six criminal justice areas for at least nine months. Two of the areas, Essex and Bedfordshire, have already commenced piloting some of the proposals on listing this week. The remaining four will start in June. The Essex and Bedfordshire pilots are only running in the Crown courts, but they will be extended to the magistrates courts in April. The outcome will be evaluated so that things that work successfully can be implemented nationally. 
 Our aim on listing is to set trial dates with greater certainty and, increasingly, whenever possible to use fixtures that are based on the state of readiness of the case. In the pilot in Essex and Bedfordshire, the Crown court will move towards giving a fixed date for trial in every case by using an incremental approach to change. The desired outcome of the pilots will be that all hearings that are fixed under the arrangements should go ahead on the date, at the time and in the location agreed. The pilot will also aim to maximise the use of the time of legal representatives including CPS higher court advocates, for example, for plea and directions hearings and preliminary hearings, through the use of block listing. 
 The later pilots will also test other improvements to the case preparation process, including the use of certificates of readiness and improved case progression elements within the courts, the CPS, the police and the defence. I hope that the work that is already in hand in these pilot projects indicates the seriousness with which the Government take the issue. All of us who are involved in the criminal justice system have a duty to ensure that the bits work together as effectively as possible—to reduce the number of cases that do not go ahead when they should do, not least because of the inconvenience that it causes to defendants and to the 40 per cent. of people who turn up to do their duty and find that the system cannot accommodate them on the day in question. That is not good enough and we need to do better.

David Heath: I thank the hon. Member for Woking for his contribution. He speaks with a great deal of authority on this issue. He corroborated my argument about the difficulties that are so often experienced, and drew a telling analogy between the plea and directions hearing in the higher courts and what could be achieved in the magistrates courts.
 I hope that I have made it clear that the new clause is not intended to be the last word, but simply raises the problem. The Minister's reply was extremely helpful. It is clear that the Government want to address the issue and it sounds as though we are making progress. I am a little worried that it is a trilateral arrangement, but it says all that we need to know about the arrangements of the criminal justice system that three Government Departments have to work together to achieve a single result: adequate case management in the courts. Nevertheless, the pilot schemes to which the Minister referred give us some means of working towards better management of cases by the prosecution and, hopefully, of dealing with other issues, such as disclosure, which are often the cause of adjournments. 
 We hope that what eventually emerges is not simply better communication between the various elements involved in the preparation of cases, but a series of milestones along the way in every court case. That would enable the progress of cases to be monitored to ensure that, once the trial date has been set, the trial actually takes place on that date and there is no problem with the preparation of the case from the 
 prosecution, defence or police, or in relation to the introduction of witnesses. I shall watch the progress of the pilot schemes with interest and return to the matter within the compass of my other responsibilities in connection with the Lord Chancellor's Department. We must hope that, in the near future, we shall have a system that is adequate to the task and underpinned by the appropriate technology—another issue that I could discuss, but will not.

Dominic Grieve: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

David Heath: I was just about to sit down, but I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Dominic Grieve: I might have spoken earlier had I heard the hon. Gentleman's opening remarks, but I want to put in a plea. Some proactive management from the judiciary is also required. We have largely ignored the judiciary during our debate but my experience is that they sometimes contribute to the ineffectiveness of trial dates by a curious reluctance to get on with the job.

David Heath: The hon. Gentleman speaks from more experience than I do.

Dominic Grieve: I was referring to my hon. Friend the Member for Woking.

David Heath: ''If the wig fits'' is, perhaps, the appropriate term to use with reference to any specific judge or magistrate in any particular circumstances. I broadly agree with the hon. Gentleman. It is a cause for concern when the whole process becomes increasingly remote.
 I am sure that we shall return to the matter in the context of the Courts Bill. The more remote the process is, the less likely it is that there will be good communications and relationships between the various people concerned with the progress of the case. Having heard what the Minister said, I am reassured that the Government have a serious intent and that what they say is not mere rhetoric. I am surprised that it has taken so long since Ministers first raised the issue to reach the point of running pilot schemes. Nevertheless, that is welcome news; let us hope for the results that we want. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. 
 Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 29 - Victim's compensation arrangements

'(1) Any sum awarded to a victim of crime by means of a Compensation Order shall be paid to the victim within 14 days of the award.
 (2) Magistrates' Courts Committees shall put in place arrangements for Compensation Order payments to be made in full where the offender fails to make any required payment within 14 days of the payment date decided by the Court.'.—[Mr. Heath.]
 Brought up, and read the First time.

David Heath: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
 This new clause deals with compensation orders, which, the Committee will remember, deal with compensation awarded to the victims at the conclusion of a trial. A court must consider making a compensation order for loss, injury or damage. The orders are normally for less than that which the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board would consider and they are not intended to act as a recompense for the damage caused, because they must be within the means of the offender. There are difficulties with compensation orders in that default on them occurs to an even greater extent than default on fines—it is, in fact, almost ubiquitous. The system is unsatisfactory. 
 The principal losers from the current system are often police officers. It often happens that a compensation order, which might not amount to a great deal of money, is ordered to be paid to a police officer, who, I suspect, shrugs his shoulders and thinks, ''Well, that's the last I will see of that,'' because that has been his experience in so many cases. The difficulty is that the compensation order requires the offender to pay into the court and for the court to pass that on to the person to whom the compensation order is made. Therefore, if the offender does not pay to the court, no compensation is paid to the injured party. 
 The evidence that the system is simply not working is manifold. I think that the Police Federation has carried out a study of the problem across the country, in which it looked at various police authorities. The examples are quite shocking. Some 73 compensation orders were reviewed in West Mercia, but in 33 those cases no payment at all towards the award had been received. In North Wales, in 16 cases over 12 months looked at, only three of the offenders involved were making any attempt to pay compensation. I could go on to list the various police forces around the country and the lack of response. 
 A potential way of dealing with the problem is to have a victims fund, from which payments could be made and to which reimbursements could be made by the payment that the offender makes to the court in due course, as and when that is collected. That proposal came out of the review of the victims charter back in February 2001, which said: 
''we know that some offenders still fail to pay up. To ensure that victims receive the full amount awarded to them by the Court promptly in every case, we are looking carefully at whether to establish a 'Victims' Fund' to ensure that victims receive the financial compensation they deserve from offenders more quickly. We would have to give considerable thought to the creation of any fund.'' 
Such considerable thought clearly is still being given to the proposal, as it has still not emerged since February 2001, despite the warm welcome that almost every respondent to that consultation paper gave. 
 That fund could work in a variety of ways. It could work through the constabulary in the case of police officer compensation, because the total amounts involved are negligible compared with the annual expenditure of a constabulary. However, the most important thing is that the person injured should receive the compensation that the court orders that they should receive, and should not wait for years after 
 the event, only to receive nothing whatever. That is a self-evident proposition that I commend to the Committee. 
 Perhaps the Government intend to do something about this problem. I should be interested to know what is happening in relation to the promised victims and witnesses Bill. There has been much confusion about whether a victims Bill is in the offing, whether the present Bill is the victims Bill under another name, and whether something will happen in the current Session. Since the Queen's Speech and the Government's leaflet, ''A Better Deal for Victims and Witnesses'', which does not mention a victims fund but sets out plans for a Bill, we have heard nothing more from Ministers, business managers or anyone else. One thing that the Government can make absolutely clear today is whether another Bill entitled something like the ''Victims and Witnesses Bill'' or ''Witnesses and Victims Bill'' will be presented in this Session to deal with the relevant issues, or whether the Criminal Justice Bill is thought to suffice for those purposes. I am none the clearer from what has been said so far. 
 Irrespective of whether a Bill will be presented, new clause 29 is at least a way of dealing with the issue through magistrates courts committees. A relatively small amount of money is involved—something of the order of £50 or £100. Larger sums are considered by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. A relatively small fund could therefore provide satisfaction to those who are injured and entitled to compensation without causing cash flow difficulties for any Department or agent of the state. 
 If the Minister is not minded to accept the new clause, I hope that he will say whether the concept of a victims fund to deal with compensation orders is in the Government's mind and, if so, how it might be implemented. Can we expect in this Session a Bill on this broad area of concern, and if not, what is happening about compensation orders? Does the Minister find it satisfactory that in the great majority of cases, it appears that those who are awarded compensation for personal injury never receive a penny?

Humfrey Malins: The hon. Gentleman has again identified a relevant issue. It is a sad fact that although compensation orders—I speak principally of what happens in magistrates courts—are made quite regularly, the payment rate has historically been very low. That has meant that, in particular, many police victims of assault have not been compensated. The proposal for a victims fund is interesting. I do not have a view on it, but the hon. Gentleman has done us a service in making the suggestion so that the Government can give it consideration.
 The Government should also consider the need to give court orders more teeth. Some weeks ago we debated outstanding fines, and I outlined the laborious process that every court must go through to get money from an unwilling defendant, including considering attendance centre orders, money payment supervision orders, distress warrants, deduction of benefit, 
 attachment of earnings and the like. I tried to explain to the Minister the sheer frustration that courts face in trying to get the money from people. 
 A police officer may, for example, suffer an assault—not a major one, but a black eye, being spat on, or a bruised shin—and the defendant may be convicted. I do not think that police officers often go the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, as it is probably not police practice to do so. If they are not a unique category, they are an unusual one, because some victims will go to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. However, the court might make a compensation order in favour of a police officer for a modest sum—often as low as £50 or £100—which is intended to mark the court's displeasure and acknowledge the need to give the officer some recompense for getting hurt, albeit mildly, in the execution of his or her duties. It is frustrating that, as often as not in those circumstances, the money is not paid. 
 What extra teeth could the court have? Many who sit in judgment would like to be able to say to a defendant, ''You will pay the police officer £100, and if you do not pay it in a fortnight you will be back before me and you will go to prison, and that will be the end of the story.'' That would be a bold approach, but it will never be put into practice, even though the cold wind of a prison sentence blowing down a defendant's neck is likely to enhance the chances of getting the money. 
 Many district judges say what they should not say to defendants who do not pay, because they know that they cannot follow through. They say, ''If you do not pay in 28 days you will come back before me''—which is uncertain—''and if you do, you know what is going to happen to you, don't you?'' The defendant might begin to shake and reply, ''Yes, I will go to prison.'' The judge has not said that that will be the case, but that is what he is trying to imply. 
 If one gives people short terms to raise money, they will raise it—it is as simple as that. There are stories of defendants in the box saying, ''I am on benefits, I have got no cash, and I am out of work,'' and in answer to a series of questions they then say, ''Yes, I smoke 40 cigarettes a day, drink 16 pints a week and run a mobile phone.'' People scratch their heads in disbelief about where the money comes from and where it is going.

David Heath: The courts have some powers under the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 to impose penalties for non-payment of compensation orders. The problem is that the compensation order lapses when that process is applied. Therefore, the police officer still gets nothing for his pains—literally—in executing his duty.

Humfrey Malins: That is a very good point.
 I wish to make a final point. During the debate, I remembered that a fund exists in court; it is infrequently used but it is a very good fund, although I have forgotten its name and where its money comes from. When trial judges come across instances of bravery by a member of the public—in tackling a 
 would-be thief as he leaves a shop, for example—they can propose to make an order that the person receive £500 or £1,000, as a mark of the court's appreciation. Although I have forgotten which fund is used for that, I know that courts that make those orders find that they are paid immediately because the money is available. I am unsure whether such a source of money could include a fund for victims, as the hon. Gentleman suggests. 
 The hon. Gentleman has made a good point. There are categories of people who do not receive their compensation awards, and it is high time that the onus shifts on to the defendant to pay what he or she is ordered to pay, with draconian sanctions if the payment is not made immediately or within a reasonably short period. I hope that the Government will accept that that is a valid point. By highlighting this issue, the hon. Gentleman's new clause helps to move the debate forward, and I am keen to hear the Government's response.

Hilary Benn: The hon. Gentleman's new clause highlights a problem that has existed for some time. As he told the Committee, compensation orders are an important way of bringing home to offenders the harm that they have caused to others by committing their crimes, and they aim to provide some recompense—although, for the reasons that we have heard, not necessarily full recompense, because in setting the monetary penalty the courts must have regard to the circumstances of the offence and the offender, including his ability to pay the sums awarded. In practice, that usually means that the offender is allowed time to pay by instalments, and some do not pay at all.
 It might help the Committee if I say that 102,400 offenders were ordered to pay compensation in the criminal courts in 2000, and the total value of the orders imposed was £21.4 million. The average per offender was £150 in the magistrates courts, and £1,292 in the Crown court. It is believed that about a quarter of the compensation awarded is typically paid in the first 30 days, but there is no recent research, so that is an estimate. The remainder is paid subsequently, or, in the case of default, the debts accumulate. 
 That is why there have been attempts from time to time to find ways of getting compensation to victims more quickly. Usually, those attempts have taken the form of establishing a fund to pay compensation up front and subsequently to collect the money from offenders. The new clause is silent on the precise mechanics, but I assume that a similar arrangement is envisaged. The fundamental problem until now—under Governments of both parties—has been the cost, although I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. Advance payments from public funds—the hon. Gentleman nods, indicating that this is what he is considering—would, in effect, provide offenders with a loan at public expense until they choose to pay the compensation themselves. That is what we would be talking about in practice. Such a loan would become irrecoverable if the offender were to default. 
 In the light of the figures that I have given, there is a real issue about costs. Once such a scheme was in place, there might be a tendency for courts to make more awards because they knew where the money was coming from. They might also award higher amounts as a result of weighing what the offender could afford against the pot of money from which compensation for police officers and others would come. The cost could therefore quickly mount up. 
 We looked afresh at the problem only last year. A working group, involving officials from interested Departments and the voluntary sector, including Victim Support, looked at the possibility of establishing such a fund. However, it was unable to devise a scheme that was genuinely self-financing rather than imposing a potentially significant and growing additional cost on the taxpayer. That, in essence, is where we stand. If we could find a way of dealing with the problem, many of the difficulties would disappear. However, despite the best endeavours of several Governments, that has not happened.

Simon Hughes: I want to respond quickly before my hon. Friend winds up and to encourage him by suggesting three things that may or may not have been part of the Government's considerations.
 First, there are parallels with the insurance world. This is not an exact comparison, and I appreciate that insurance is a private sector service. None the less, the existence of the Motor Insurers Bureau, for example, means that if the Minister or I have a collision, and the other vehicle turns out to be uninsured, the faultless party will not go without recompense. That is an established system, and the collective of those who deal with car insurance picks up the deficit that would otherwise result if one sued an uninsured party. 
 One could draw a parallel with the present set of issues as regards the public purse. One could study the collection of fines and the recovery of criminal assets—we have just had further announcements about that, and we welcome the implementation of the legislation that we passed last year—and money that comes into the public domain could be collected and set aside to pay compensation. One could say that such a scheme was the first claim on those funds, and money could be returned where it should be by paying compensation. In addition, it seems to me that the public would be quite willing for their money, which becomes the Government's money via taxes, to be used for that purpose because they recognise the need for victims not to go unrewarded. 
 The last point concerns the danger of courts suddenly awarding compensation under a scheme and costs going up. Of course, that is a risk, but the Minister will know that the civil law system that applies to criminal injury—a system that straddles criminal and civil liability—has operated two or three schemes over the last 20 or 25 years, under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority and the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. Those schemes used to be more generous but covered fewer circumstances but now offer less of a maximum award 
 and cover wider circumstances. Such a scheme can always be regulated and brought before Parliament for approval. It can be the subject of advice from magistrates, judges, victims' organisations and others. 
 My view, and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome, is that if we worked at the new clause, we could achieve something that the public would find far more satisfactory than the present situation. I urge the Minister not to give up this quest. If he wants assistance and encouragement from Liberal Democrat Members, we will be happy to help. I am sure that there would be general willingness around the House to work out a scheme that would command public confidence.

David Heath: I am grateful to those Members who contributed to the debate. I still express a preference for a central fund, which is the appropriate way to deal with the issue.
 I want to deal with the scale of the issue. First, no one wants to excuse criminals from paying what they are ordered to pay, so the process should not be seen as a substitution of state funds or as compensation awarded against an offender. 
 Secondly, the current situation is particularly irksome, especially for police officers. It metaphorically slaps them in the face, following the punch in the face that they received from the offender in the first place. It suggests to them that we will make an order but we are not interested in whether the offender complies with it. It says, ''Yes, you have ended up with a black eye and a couple of days off work because you exercised your powers in the pursuance of your duty, but the courts and the public do not care very much.'' I find that totally unacceptable, as would most people. 
 If there are doubts about how the system might operate through the courts, now is surely the time to ask serving police officers and police authorities whether they think that there is a suitable mechanism. A scheme was established in Durham through the constabulary and the police authority in which the authority undertook to underwrite all compensation orders made to officers by the courts if they were not fully paid full within one month of being made. The police authority was not removing the offender's initial opportunity to make the payment, but if nothing happened a payment was made and then recouped. 
 Between 1 May 1997 and 13 April 1998, officers made 13 applications to the police authority for payment, and the total sum involved was £3,625. Of that, offenders subsequently repaid £1,340, and there was a deficit of £2,338. That is a relatively small amount for one constabulary to repay its officers for their hard work and the personal injuries that they have suffered. If the scheme were extended to the other 43 police authority areas in England and Wales, it would not cost a huge amount. Any individual authority other than the Metropolitan police—even the biggest police authorities outside London—would have to set aside no more than, say, £10,000 as a 
 potential liability. The fund would not be sufficiently large to cause great concern to the Exchequer, either national or local. 
 The suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) to set aside some of the income from fines or the recovery of the receipts of crime is appropriate, and the Minister might consider it further. The Government have not pursued it with sufficient assiduity. Perhaps it is a peripheral issue, but we owe it to police officers and others who are awarded payments to make sure that they receive their entitlement. 
 I shall not press the matter to a vote, but I am looking to the Minister to discuss it with the Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community Safety, the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), to see whether a satisfactory solution can be found. It should not be beyond the wit of either the Home Office or the court system to devise a scheme that would enable those who are entitled to compensation to receive something from society for—literally—their pains. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. 
 Motion and new clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 30 - Public accountability of criminal justice agencies

No.NC30, to move the following Clause:— 
 'It shall be the duty of the Chief Constable, the Chief Probation Officer, the local representative of the Director-General of the Prison Service and the local Courts Service manager to make an annual report to the local authority and to account for the performance of their organisation before a full public meeting of the council.'.—[Simon Hughes.]
 Brought up, and read the First time.

Simon Hughes: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
 This crystallises a proposition that was put the other day. I do not intend to rehearse the argument that I made on that occasion. I draw attention to the salient points, and I would be grateful to hear the Minister's considered reflection, given that we have been round this course once before. 
 This new clause is about ensuring that there is accountability. The hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) made the point that these issues have a wide family of interests. A number of those, such as social services, education and education welfare, and all those who work directly or indirectly for the local authority, are already accountable. Our proposed list does not deal with the health service family, which has indirect and inadequate accountability. However, I would argue that it could be included. 
 Our suggestion is that we place a duty on the chief constable or a representative of the police; the chief probation officer or a local borough, county or district representative; a local representative of the director general of the Prison Service; and the local court 
 service manager or somebody who can speak with authority about why it took case A so long to get to court or why so many cases collapsed. I know that the Prison Service is not organised in the way that I have suggested, but there is bound to be somebody who can speak on behalf of a prison or a set of prisons, whether it is Armley jail or Rampton. 
 My hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome made a point about getting one's tackle in order; when people turn up to court and something fails to happen, somebody ought to account for that. Those people would be obliged to make an annual report to the local authority because that feeds into the existing system—it is important not to duplicate systems—and they would report to a full public meeting of the council. When those in charge of the criminal justice services had to appear, the leader of the council and all the senior councillors would have to be available to be quizzed so that the public could hear their answers. That would be very interesting. 
 The local papers would publish such annual reports because the press would turn up at the annual meeting in which they were presented, and they would report in considerable detail what was said by the chief probation officer and the person responsible for the Prison Service. That would result in a lot of letters to the local papers about whether their arguments reflected a good or bad experience of the criminal justice system; that would feed back to the councillors and into the system. It would give a focus to crime and disorder partnerships involving the police and local authorities and to other forums; they could be seen, in public, to be coming into contact with those to whom we pay our taxes to provide those services on our behalf. 
 I do not pretend that the drafting of the new clause is perfect, but I hope that after the previous debate it is in a clearer and more crystallised form. It is built on ideas from the White Paper, so I cannot claim originality, which were put forward by people such as the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen). I say again that we are happy to sit down with colleagues and try to get a format that allows us to learn from the experience of people from all corners of the country and all parts of the House, because that would be useful.

Dominic Grieve: The new clause brings back to the Committee something that we have already discussed, but I make no criticism of that because it is desirable that there should be much greater public accountability and transparency in the workings of those who operate within the criminal justice system. The idea of a system of annual reporting seems desirable, although the local authority to which the report should be made is left pleasantly unresolved in the drafting. In the Thames Valley area, the reports could be made to the county or district council—except for the fact that the Prison Service does not operate in some districts. I am not engaging in semantics—it is a matter for fine tuning—and the principle is a good one.
 The report is important because it would give people an opportunity to ask questions. Indeed, many local authorities already have formal meetings. For instance, one of my district councils meets formally with me and the police chief superintendent. We now see police liaison officers assigned to, and working within, local authority buildings, which is a good and beneficial sign for the future. However, I return to what I said previously, which is that it is all very well having meetings but we also need data. 
 My plea to the Minister is that if such a scheme is to work—I hope that it can progress—it must be based on the availability of data to local authorities and local residents about the crime rates in their area. For instance, there is no point in telling my constituents that the overall crime rate in the police area has gone down if a serious local problem is being concealed in the general statistics being made available. 
 In my time as the Member for Beaconsfield, I have discovered how variable the parish crime rates can be, even in the area that I represent. Indeed patterns occur quite consistently—they are not blips—and places, or microcosms, can be identified within which one will find particular patterns of crime. People are entitled to know about that and what is being done about it. If we could move in that direction, we would start the sort of community policing that my hon. Friends and I believe in so strongly, but I am afraid that although lip service is being paid to that concept, the practice is proving elusive. 
 I welcome the new clause; it seems sensible, and I hope that the Minister will build on his earlier answers and say that he will accept it.

Hilary Benn: The new clause touches on a subject that we debated at some length a week or two ago. As I said then, the new local criminal justice boards, the membership of which will comprise the chief officers of the courts, the probation service, the Prison Service, the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and the youth offending teams—that covers all the bodies listed in the new clause—will be required to produce annual reports containing statistics and information.
 I take the point made by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield about the importance of local statistics and information. The boards will be required to produce an annual report on the performance of local areas and to make that report available to the public. The first part of what the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey is seeking is already achieved through the new criminal justice boards, which will be launched on 1 April. Their central purpose is to strengthen the performance of the criminal justice system and to improve its delivery. 
 Each board will also be required to establish advisory machinery, which may include representatives of the local community within which consultation will take place. A document will be circulated on those consultation arrangements which sets out a range of proposals and considerations that the boards can look at in deciding how most effectively to perform their task. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield raised the question of what is the most appropriate local authority for the purposes of such 
 reporting arrangements. By virtue of the fact that an annual report will be produced, which will, I am sure, be circulated to all the relevant local authorities in the area, there is nothing to stop a local authority from, for example, inviting representatives of the board in to discuss a local issue. 
 As I think I said when we discussed the matter previously, I am keen that we should let local arrangements develop in light of the statutory requirements that we are placing on the local criminal justice boards. I accept entirely the argument that we should develop better consultative arrangements with representatives of the local community in its various forms. I hope that we can build on that as we welcome the spirit of the new clause, while recognising that the new clause itself is not needed.

Simon Hughes: I am grateful to the Minister for generally being constructive, but I suggest that something is needed. I shall not push the motion to a vote, but raise two points that I hope the Minister will take into consideration. First, we recognise that under the arrangements that the Government propose there are to be annual reports from the agencies that he talked about. We are in the middle of a debate about statistics in the Home Office, and I have now received the letter that he said I might receive. I have asked my office to arrange a meeting with the Home Office head of statistics at the first practical opportunity, and I look forward to that. If we are to have such reports and they are to be meaningful, can the reports for the areas for which publication is currently an obligation be published at the same time, so that they can all be seen together? Members of the public could then find them together and look at them in the round, and they would read coherently together. There would then not be different accounting years, different crime years or different boundaries. It is important that there is comparability and transparency.
 Secondly, the fact that there will be sets of reports at the level proposed is welcome. However, to take the constituency of the hon. Member for Beaconsfield, the report for the level proposed will be for the Thames Valley police area, which is three counties and something in the order of 15 to 20 districts. If one considers urban areas, in London there are 33 local authorities, and in Greater Manchester there would be, I think, 10 metropolitan borough councils. Although the hon. Member for Nottingham, North will know better than I do, in a county such as Nottinghamshire there will be about half a dozen, seven or eight local authorities below the county level. There is the county, the city and non-unitary districts. The report will not be very relevant to them. Not every district, thank God, has a prison in it; neither has every parish. There will be places where people will not expect the prison governor to appear, because they will not be worried that prisoners are about to climb over the wall. 
 However, people in those areas would still be interested in policing, probation and courts. Unless the Government close even more courts and make them even more remote, such matters will be relevant locally. There would not be a district in Buckinghamshire or Somerset or a borough in London or a unitary authority in any other part of England or Wales in which people would not like the statistics to be available. As well as the macro-statistics that we will get—and I make a plea that they be co-ordinated—we should make comparable transparent and useful statistics available at the lower local authority level. To answer the question posed by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield, we should start at the principal local authority. Once we have those in the bag, we can think about bringing it down to a more local level.

David Heath: I wonder whether my hon. Friend has read the correspondence page of The Times today. It contains an excellent letter from a detective constable quoting Sir Josiah Stamp on government statistics on crime, saying that even though they were sophisticated to the nth degree—I am paraphrasing—they all come down to what the local watchman chooses to put into his account.

Simon Hughes: My hon. Friend is ahead of me. I have not yet read the correspondence page of The Times, for which I apologise. It is not always my first reading of the day. No doubt all Committee members, including Government Members, have scoured the press. I hope that we will see results from our combined efforts. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
 Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 31 - Welfare of detained children (No.2)

'(1) It shall be the duty of—
(a) the governor or controller of any institution in which persons under the age of 18 years are detained pursuant to a conviction, and
(b) any person who is responsible for the detention of any such young persons,
to safeguard and promote the welfare of such young persons.
 (2) Where a young person under the age of 18 years is detained the local authority in whose area the young person is detained shall take such steps as are reasonably practicable to enable them to determine whether the child's welfare is adequately safeguarded and promoted.
 (3) Where a local authority is of the opinion that there has been a failure to comply with subsection (1) in relation to a child detained within their area they shall notify the Secretary of State.
 (4) Any person authorised by a local authority may, for the purpose of enabling the authority to discharge its duties under this section, enter at any reasonable time any place within its area in which young people are detained.
 (5) Any person who intentionally obstructs another in the exercise of any power conferred by this section shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.'.—[Mr. Allen.]
 Brought up, and read the First time. 
 Mr. Graham Allen (Nottingham, North): 
 I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. 
 My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) and my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham will, I have no doubt, speak much more eloquently than I can to the new clause. I wish to refer Committee members to the briefing paper sent to them by the Howard League for Penal Reform on the need for a clear duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of young persons. I will now let my colleagues speak.

Vera Baird: The clause comes from a test case taken by the Howard League against the Home Secretary. It challenged the Home Office position in a Prison Service order that the Children Act 1989 did not apply to people under 18 in prisons. The judge said that it did apply to children in prison and that Prison Service order 4950 was wrong. Subsections (2) to (5) of the new clause are consequences of that judgment. If children in prison are subject to the Children Act, their rights can be enforced only by local authorities, and their welfare safeguarded though children protection and child in need procedures. If the local authorities are to carry out those statutory duties for children, they must have the right to enter prisons.
 Although the Children Act applies to children in prison because of that judgment, it does not apply to the Prison Service, which means that, unlike the local authority, it does not have a clear statutory duty to safeguard the welfare of children. Although the judge in that case was right to praise the Prison Service order, finding it wrong in only one particular, there is no doubt that since the creation of the Youth Justice Board and the secure estate for juveniles, conditions have greatly improved. However, there are still some practices in prison that should not occur, and could not occur if it were made clear that the Prison Service is subject to the Children Act 1989. Such practices include the use of solitary confinement, segregation and control and restraint methods. Some young offenders institutions still punish children for days in special cells, where there is no furniture, no natural light and the children do not have any clothes, only a jacket and a blanket. 
 Of course, it is only the most difficult children who end up in such cells, but they are almost certainly also the most damaged children. Such practices might constitute abuse in any other institution, such as a home, secure training centre or local authority secure unit, yet they continue, despite the Prison Service order, which the judge praised for its child-friendly language, despite the eye of the Youth Justice Board and despite the Human Rights Act 1998. The new clause offers a means by which the Government can specifically enact that the welfare of children in prisons is paramount.

Dominic Grieve: As the hon. and learned Lady knows, I have considerable sympathy with the thrust of the new clause. There is no doubt that the inability of prisons or other young offenders institutions to comply with the Children Act 1989 is a major cause for concern. The 1989 Act lays down what many people regard to be standards. It is true that some of the children and
 young people who have to be detained are exceptionally difficult and one can easily see from the examples that she cited why compliance sometimes cannot be achieved. It is over-optimistic to expect that we can impose the 1989 Act on such institutions when the particular problems that they face may make it impossible for them to comply with it. It is also over-optimistic to expect them to change their practices overnight to meet those standards.
 It would be useful, however—I should be interested to hear the Minister's view on this—if the annual report produced by a young offenders institution were to detail the extent to which it had complied with the 1989 Act and stated which of its practices did not comply, giving specific instances and reasons. That could be useful in highlighting the real nature of the problem for Parliament and for the public and might be of assistance in finding a way forward to ensure that, in the long term, we succeed in achieving the goal identified by the hon. Member for Nottingham, North.

Joan Humble: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North on raising such an important issue, which highlights the anomalous position of young people whose level of support differs according to which institution they are in.
 I want to query one or two terms of the new clause. It states: 
 ''It shall be the duty of— 
 (a) the governor or controller of any institution in which persons under the age of 18 years are detained''. 
Most young people are already covered by legislation and the new clause does not highlight the specific concern of young people in prison. As I mentioned when we debated a previous reference to young people in custody, in my capacity as chair of Lancashire social services committee, I had a duty under the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 to visit any young person in the care of the local authority to determine whether the secure order under which they were placed was appropriate and whether their placement was appropriate. In that capacity, I visited some young offenders institutions. Do different young offenders institutions apply different rules? 
 Under the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, responsibilities were consolidated and added to because not many local authorities carried out their responsibilities. It gave more responsibility to elected members of the authority rather than officers. We must ensure that young people are properly visited and supervised and that their welfare needs are taken into account, especially those in prison or in young offenders institutions that may not allow local authority representatives to visit. 
 Subsection (2) states: 
''the local authority in whose area the young person . . . is detained . . . shall take such steps''. 
It has always been the case that the home local authority has ongoing responsibility for young people, whether they are placed with foster carers, in a children's home or in secure accommodation. I am worried that there could be dramatic resource 
 implications for the local authority. Will my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North and the Minister take that into account? 
 I welcome subsection (4). I assume that it refers to the practice of independent people visiting young people. Prison visitors regularly visit prisons, but under the 1989 Act, independent visitors have a special role in the welfare of young people. I welcome the thrust of the new clause, although the details need to be examined more closely. In conclusion, however, I would far rather not see young people in prison. We would then not even be considering such a new clause.

David Heath: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Nottingham, North on tabling the new clause. It is clear that the problem is not the intention of the Prison Service but the practice within institutions. I refer to the Child Bench. Mr. Justice Munby made a case for Prison Service order 4950 when he said:
''humanity and regard for the dignity of the children in YOIs shines through on every page''. 
The issue is about what happens to children when they are in such situations, and it is that which the chief inspectors' reports have drawn attention to in the most damning way. It is a matter of concern. Justice Munby said that the chief inspectors' reports 
''shame us all . . . They ought to be—I hope they are—matters of the very greatest concern to the Prison Service, to the Secretary of State for the Home Department and, indeed to society at large. For these are things being done to children by the State—by all of us—in circumstances where the State appears to be failing, and in some instances failing very badly in its duties to vulnerable and damaged children.'' 
Never mind the intentions, that is a serious indictment of the practice. I hope that the Minister recognises it as a serious criticism of what is still within his Department's purview. If the new clause does something to mitigate the circumstances of young offenders, it should be strongly supported. If the answer to the problem is training, resources or changing the regime within our institutions, I hope that he will give the Committee a categorical assurance that that will be done without delay, because the circumstances about which we have heard cannot be allowed to continue.

Hilary Benn: I, too, am grateful for the opportunity that the new clause has given us to debate briefly the consequences of the judgment in the High Court on 29 November in the case brought by the Howard League for Penal Reform. I said at the time—I say it again—that I welcome that judgment. It might be useful if I remind the Committee what the judgment said.
 The judgment said that the Children Act 1989 does not confer or impose any functions, powers, duties, responsibilities or obligations on either the Prison Service or the Home Secretary, but the duties that a local authority would otherwise owe to a child, either under section 17 or section 47 of the Act, do not cease merely because a child is currently detained at a young offenders institution. In that sense, the Act does apply to children in YOIs. However, a local authority's 
 functions, powers, duties and responsibilities under the Children Act 1989 must operate subject to the necessary requirements of imprisonment. 
 The judgment held that the statement in the paragraph of the Prison Service order that says that the Act does not apply to under 18-year-olds in prison is wrong in law. The Prison Service had identified that because it said that it intended to remove the statement from the order. 
 The judge said that with the sole exception of that statement, the policy set out in the Prison Service order complied with domestic law, especially with the Children Act 1989, and more than adequately met the Prison Service's obligations under human rights law. Indeed, the order was commended for the humanity that shone out from every page. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome hit the nail on the head when he said that the issue is not what the law says but the implementation of the policies within the Prison Service. That is why it has revised its child protection protocol to set out clearly the relationship that is expected between young offenders institutions and the local area child protection committee in every case. 
 Most governors now have representation on a local ACPC. Each young offenders institution in the juvenile estate has appointed a child protection co-ordinator and has established a child protection committee for the establishment. Several of those committees have representation from the local area child protection committee. A training module on child protection has been developed for staff in the juvenile estate. The juvenile group hosts regular meetings of child protection co-ordinators to examine policy development. 
 The child protection policy was developed in addition to the work that YOIs are doing to safeguard young people's welfare, and the issues that have been examined include: reception processes; induction; work with personal officers; dealing with bullying; and suicide and self-harm prevention. As the responsible Minister, I attach the highest priority to that work. Let us be honest, the support and facilities that we can provide for young people can vary widely, depending on whether they are in a local authority secure unit, a secure training centre or a prison. Decisions on placements are rightly taken on considerations of vulnerability, and the most vulnerable are placed in accommodation that can provide the best support. We have inherited that historical position and we need to make real progress. 
 Sitting suspended for a Division in the House. 
 On resuming—

Hilary Benn: Before the Division, I was describing several steps that we have taken. To my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar, I say that we have undertaken a review of segregation and of control on constraint, which I specifically asked to be done. The Youth Justice Board intends, among other
 things, to draw up a specification for advocacy services in juvenile establishments, which is something to which I attach particular importance. The issue is not the statutory requirements, but implementation. I am not persuaded about two parts of the new clause, because subsections (4) and (5) are an attempt to legislate to deal with a problem that does not exist. I know of no circumstances in which someone from a local authority who wanted to discharge his or her duties has been denied the opportunity to enter an establishment. If anyone were aware at any time that that had occurred, I would ask them to bring it to my attention straight away. I do not think that it is necessary to legislate to stop something happening that I am not aware is happening; nor indeed is it necessary to invoke the penalties in subsection (5).
 My officials have already had initial discussions with the Howard League about the work that the Prison Service is doing. I intend to meet with the Howard League before long and have written to Francis Crook to that effect. I am strongly committed to ensuring that we get the practice right. I hope that in the spirit of what I have said my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North will withdraw the motion.

Graham Allen: In view of the Minister's reassurances and the fact that he is going to meet the Howard League, I could not do anything other than beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
 Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Schedule 1 - Transfer of community orders to Scotland or Northern Ireland

Scotland
 1 (1) Where the court considering the making of a community order is satisfied that the offender resides in Scotland, or will reside there when the order comes into force, the court may not make a community order in respect of the offender unless it appears to the court— 
(a) in the case of an order imposing a requirement mentioned in subparagraph (2), that arrangements exist for persons to comply with such a requirement in the locality in Scotland in which the offender resides, or will be residing when the order comes into force, and that provision can be made for him to comply with the requirement under those arrangements, and
(b) in any case, that suitable arrangements for his supervision can be made by the council constituted under section 2 of the Local Government etc.(Scotland) Act 1994 (c.39) in whose area he resides, or will be residing when the order comes into force.
 (2) The requirements referred to in subparagraph (1)(a) are—
(a) an unpaid work requirement,
(b) an activity requirement,
(c) a programme requirement,
(d) a mental health treatment requirement,
(e) a drug rehabilitation requirement,
(f) an alcohol treatment requirement, and
(g) an electronic monitoring requirement.
 (3) Where—
(a) the appropriate court for the purposes of paragraph 16 of Schedule 7 (amendment by reason of change of residence) is satisfied that an offender in respect of whom a community order is in force proposes to reside or is residing in Scotland, and
(b) it appears to the court that the conditions in subparagraph (1)(a) and (b) are satisfied,  the power of the court to amend the order under Part 4 of Schedule 7 includes power to amend it by requiring it to be complied with in Scotland and for the offender to be supervised in accordance with the arrangements referred to in subparagraph (1)(b). 
the power of the court to amend the order under Part 4 of Schedule 7 includes power to amend it by requiring it to be complied with in Scotland and for the offender to be supervised in accordance with the arrangements referred to in subparagraph (1)(b). 
 (4) For the purposes of subparagraph (3), any reference in subparagraph (1)(a) and (b) to the time when the order comes into force is to be treated as a reference to the time when the amendment comes into force.
 (5) The court may not by virtue of subparagraph (1) or (3) require an attendance centre requirement to be complied with in Scotland.
 (6) A community order made or amended in accordance with this paragraph must—
(a) specify the locality in Scotland in which the offender resides or will be residing when the order or amendment comes into force,
(b) specify as the corresponding order for the purposes of this Schedule an order that may be made by a court in Scotland;
(c) specify as the appropriate court for the purposes of subsection (4) of section 228 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 (c.46) a court of summary jurisdiction (which, in the case of an offender convicted on indictment, must be the sheriff court) having jurisdiction in the locality specified under paragraph (a);
and section 196 (petty sessions area to be specified) does not apply in relation to an order so made or amended.
 2 (1) Where a court is considering the making or amendment of a community order by virtue of paragraph 1, Chapter 4 of Part 12 of this Act has effect subject to the following modifications.
 (2) Any reference to the responsible officer has effect as a reference to the officer of a council constituted under section 2 of the Local Government etc.(Scotland) Act 1994 (c.39) responsible for the offender's supervision or, as the case may be, discharging in relation to him the functions in respect of community service orders assigned by sections 239 to 245 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 (c.46).
 (3) In subsection (7)(b) of section 181 (activity requirement) the reference to the local probation board has effect as a reference to a council constituted under section 2 of the Local Government etc.(Scotland) Act 1994 (c.39).
 (4) In section 187 (mental health treatment requirement), for subsection (2)(a) there is substituted—
''(a) treatment as a resident patient in a hospital within the meaning of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984, not being a State hospital within the meaning of that Act;''.
Northern Ireland
 3 (1) Where the court considering the making of a community order is satisfied that the offender resides in Northern Ireland, or will reside there when the order comes into force, the court may not include in the order such a requirement as is mentioned in subparagraph (2) unless it appears to the court that arrangements can be made by the Probation Board for Northern Ireland for him to comply with the requirement. 
(2) The requirements referred to in subparagraph (1) are—
(a) an unpaid work requirement,
(b) an activity requirement,
(c) a programme requirement,
(d) a mental health treatment requirement,
(e) a drug rehabilitation requirement,
(f) an alcohol treatment requirement,
(g) an attendance centre requirement, and
(h) an electronic monitoring requirement.
 (3) Where—
(a) the appropriate court for the purposes of paragraph 16 of Schedule 7 (amendment by reason of change of residence) is satisfied that the offender to whom a community order relates proposes to reside or is residing in Northern Ireland, and
(b) it appears to the court that provision can be made by the Probation Board for Northern Ireland for the offender to comply with the requirement,  the power of the court to amend the order under Part 4 of Schedule 7 includes power to amend it by requiring it to be complied with in Northern Ireland. 
the power of the court to amend the order under Part 4 of Schedule 7 includes power to amend it by requiring it to be complied with in Northern Ireland.
 (4) A community order made or amended in accordance with this paragraph must specify the petty sessions district in Northern Ireland in which the offender resides or will be residing when the order or amendment comes into force; and section 196 (petty sessions area to be specified) does not apply in relation to an order so made or amended.
 (5) A community order made or amended in accordance with this paragraph must also specify as the corresponding order for the purposes of this Schedule an order that may be made by a court in Northern Ireland.
 4 (1) Where a court is considering the making or amendment of a community order by virtue of paragraph 3, Chapter 4 of Part 12 of this Act has subject to the following modifications.
 (2) Any reference to the responsible officer has effect as a reference to the probation officer responsible for the offender's supervision or, as the case may be, discharging in relation to the offender the functions conferred by Part 2 of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 (S.I. 1996/3160 (N.I. 24)).
 (3) In subsection (7)(b) of section 181 (activity requirement) the reference to the local probation board for the area in which the premises are situated has effect as a reference to the Probation Board for Northern Ireland.
 (4) In section 187 (mental health treatment requirement), for subsection (2)(a) there is substituted—
''(a) treatment (whether as an inpatient or an outpatient) at such hospital as may be specified in the order, being a hospital within the meaning of the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1972, approved by the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety for the purposes of paragraph 4(3) of Schedule 1 to the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1996;''.
General provisions
 5 In this Part of this Schedule— 
''corresponding order'' means the order specified under paragraph 1(6)(b) or 3(5);
''home court'' means—
(a) if the offender resides in Scotland, or will be residing there at the relevant time, the sheriff court having jurisdiction in the locality in which he resides or proposes to reside, and
(b) if he resides in Northern Ireland, or will be residing there at the relevant time, the court of summary jurisdiction acting for the petty sessions district in which he resides or proposes to reside;
''the local authority officer concerned'', in relation to an offender, means the officer of a council constituted under section 2 of the Local Government etc.(Scotland) Act 1994 (c.39) responsible for his supervision or, as the case may be, discharging in relation to him the functions in respect of community service orders assigned by sections 239 to 245 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 (c.46);
''the probation officer concerned'', in relation to an offender, means the probation officer responsible for his supervision or, as the case may be, discharging in relation to him the functions conferred by Part 2 of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 (S.I. 1996/3160 (N.I. 24));
''the relevant time'' means the time when the order or the amendment to it comes into force.
6 Where a community order is made or amended in accordance with paragraph 1 or 3, the court which makes or amends the order must provide the home court with a copy of the order as made or amended, together with such other documents and information relating to the case as it considers likely to be of assistance to that court; and paragraphs (b) to (d) of subsection (1) of section 199 (provision of copies of relevant orders) do not apply.
7 In section 200 (duty of offender to keep in touch with responsible officer) the reference to the responsible officer is to be read in accordance with paragraph 2(2) or 4(2).
 8 Where a community order is made or amended in accordance with paragraph 1 or 3, then, subject to the following provisions of this Part of this Schedule—  (a) the order is to be treated as if it were a corresponding order made in the part of the United Kingdom in which the offender resides, or will be residing at the relevant time, and  (b) the legislation relating to such orders which has effect in that part of the United Kingdom applies accordingly. 
(a) the order is to be treated as if it were a corresponding order made in the part of the United Kingdom in which the offender resides, or will be residing at the relevant time, and
(b) the legislation relating to such orders which has effect in that part of the United Kingdom applies accordingly.
9 Before making or amending a community order in those circumstances the court must explain to the offender in ordinary language—
(a) the requirements of the legislation relating to corresponding orders which has effect in the part of the United Kingdom in which he resides or will be residing at the relevant time,
(b) the powers of the home court under that legislation, as modified by this Part of this Schedule, and
(c) its own powers under this Part of this Schedule.
10 The home court may exercise in relation to the community order any power which it could exercise in relation to the corresponding order made by a court in the part of the United Kingdom in which the home court exercises jurisdiction, by virtue of the legislation relating to such orders which has effect in that part, except the following—
(a) section 232(2)(b), 233, 239(5)(b) or 240(1)(c) or (d) of, or paragraph 1 of Schedule 6 to, the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 (c.46);
(b) paragraph 3(1)(d), 4(1)(d), 7(2) or 8(2) of Schedule 2 to the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 (S.I. 1996/3160 (N.I. 24)); and
(c) in the case of a community order imposing an unpaid work requirement, any power to vary the order by substituting for the number of hours of work specified in it any greater number than the court which made the order could have specified.
11 If at any time while legislation relating to corresponding orders which has effect in Scotland or Northern Ireland applies by virtue of paragraph 7 to a community order made in England and Wales—
(a) it appears to the home court—
(i) if that court is in Scotland, on information from the local authority officer concerned, or
(ii) if that court is in Northern Ireland, upon a complaint being made to a justice of the peace acting for the petty sessions district for the time being specified in the order,
that the offender has failed to comply with any of the requirements of the order, or
(b) it appears to the home court—
(i) if that court is in Scotland, on the application of the offender or of the local authority officer concerned, or
(ii) if it is in Northern Ireland, on the application of the offender or of the probation officer concerned,
that it would be in the interests of justice for a power conferred by paragraph 13 or 14 of Schedule 7 to be exercised,
the home court may require the offender to appear before the court which made the order.
12 Where an offender is required by virtue of paragraph 11 to appear before the court which made the community order, that court—
(a) may issue a warrant for his arrest, and
(b) may exercise any power which it could exercise in respect of the community order if the offender resided in England and Wales,
and any enactment relating to the exercise of such powers has effect accordingly, and with any reference to the responsible officer being read as a reference to the local authority officer or probation officer concerned.
13 Paragraph 12(b) does not enable the court to amend the community order unless—
(a) where the offender resides in Scotland, it appears to the court that the conditions in paragraph 1(1)(a) and (b) are satisfied in relation to any requirement to be imposed, or
 (b) where the offender resides in Northern Ireland, it appears to the court that arrangements can be made by the Probation Board for Northern Ireland for him to comply with any requirement to be imposed.  14 The preceding paragraphs of this Schedule have effect in relation to the amendment of a community order by virtue of paragraph 12(b) as they have effect in relation to the amendment of such an order by virtue of paragraph 1(3) or 3(3). 
14 The preceding paragraphs of this Schedule have effect in relation to the amendment of a community order by virtue of paragraph 12(b) as they have effect in relation to the amendment of such an order by virtue of paragraph 1(3) or 3(3).
15 Where an offender is required by virtue of paragraph (a) of paragraph 11 to appear before the court which made the community order—
(a) the home court must send to that court a certificate certifying that the offender has failed to comply with such of the requirements of the order as may be specified in the certificate, together with such other particulars of the case as may be desirable, and
(b) a certificate purporting to be signed by the clerk of the home court is admissible as evidence of the failure before the court which made the order.'.—[Hilary Benn.]
 Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Schedule 2 - Default orders: modification of provisions relating to community orders

General
 1 Any reference to the offender is, in relation to a default order, to be read as a reference to the person in default. 
Unpaid work requirement
 2 (1) In its application to a default order, section 179 (unpaid work requirement) is modified as follows. 
(2) In subsection (2), for paragraphs (a) and (b) there is substituted—
''(a) not less than 20 hours, and
(b) in the case of an amount in default which is specified in the first column of the following Table, not more than the number of hours set out opposite that amount in the second column
 Amount Number of Hours   An amount not exceeding £20040 hours  An amount exceeding £200 but not exceeding £500 60 hours  An amount exceeding £500 100 hours''
 (3) Subsection (5) is omitted. 
Curfew requirement
 3 (1) In its application to a default order, section 184 (curfew requirement) is modified as follows. 
(2) After subsection (2) there is inserted—
 ''(2A) In the case of an amount in default which is specified in the first column of the following Table, the number of days on which the person in default is subject to the curfew requirement must not exceed the number of days set out opposite that amount in the second column.
 Amount Number of Days  An amount not exceeding £200 20 days  An amount exceeding £200 but not exceeding £500 30 days  An amount exceeding £500 but not exceeding £1,000 60 days  An amount exceeding £1,000 but not exceeding £2,50090 days   An amount exceeding £2,500 180 days''
 Enforcement, revocation and amendment of default order 
4 (1) In its application to a default order, Schedule 7 (breach, revocation or amendment of community orders) is modified as follows.
 (2) Any reference to the offence in respect of which the community order was made is to be taken to be a reference to the default in respect of which the default order was made.
 (3) Any power of the court to deal with the offender in any way in which it could deal with him if he had just been convicted of the offence is to be taken to be a power to deal with him in any way in which the court which made the default order could deal with him for his default in paying the sum in question. 
(4) In paragraph 4 the reference to the Crown Court is to be taken as a reference to a magistrates' court.
 (5) The following provisions are omitted—
(a) paragraph 9(1)(c), (5) and (8),
(b) paragraph 12,
(c) paragraph 13(5),
(d) paragraph 15,
(e) paragraph 17(5),
(f) paragraph 21(4), and
(g) paragraph 23(2)(b).
Power to alter numbers of hours or days
 5 The Secretary of State may by order amend paragraph 2 or 3 by substituting for any number of hours or days there specified such other number as may be specified in the order.' 
Transfer of default orders to Scotland or Northern Ireland
 6 In its application to a default order, Schedule (Transfer of community orders to Scotland or Northern Ireland) (transfer of community orders to Scotland or Northern Ireland) is modified as follows. 
 7 After paragraph 8 there is inserted—
 ''8A Nothing in paragraph 8 affects the application of section (Power to impose unpaid work requirement or curfew requirement on fine defaulter)(7) to a default order made or amended in accordance with paragraph 1 or 3.''
 8 In paragraph 10, for paragraphs (a) and (b) there is substituted—
''(a) section 232(2)(b), 233, 239(5)(a) or (b), 240(1)(c) or (d), or 240 of, or paragraph 1 of Schedule 6 to, the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995;
(b) paragraph 3(1)(a) or (d), 4(1)(d), 7(2) or 8(2) of Schedule 2 to the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1996; and''.'—[Hilary Benn.]
 Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Schedule 3 - Enabling powers: alteration of maximum penalties etc.

Plant Health Act 1967
 1 (1) Section 3 of the Plant Health Act 1967 (c.8) (control of spread of pests in Great Britain) is amended as follows. 
(2) In subsection (4A), for ''three months'' there is substituted ''the prescribed term''.
 (3) After that subsection there is inserted—
 ''(4B) In subsection (4A) above, ''the prescribed term'' means—
(a) in relation to England and Wales, 51 weeks,
(b) in relation to Scotland, three months.''
Agriculture Act 1967
 2 (1) Section 9 of the Agriculture Act 1967 (c.22) (powers to meet future developments in livestock and livestock products industries) is amended as follows. 
(2) In subsection (10), for ''three months'' there is substituted ''the prescribed term''.
 (3) After that subsection there is inserted—
 ''(10A) In subsection (10), ''the prescribed term'' means—
(a) in relation to England and Wales, 51 weeks,
(b) in relation to Scotland, three months.''
European Communities Act 1972
 3 (1) Paragraph 1 of Schedule 2 to the European Communities Act 1972 (c.68) (provisions as to powers conferred by section 2(2)) is amended as follows. 
 (2) In subparagraph (1)(d), for ''three months'' there is substituted ''the prescribed term''. 
(3) After subparagraph (2) there is inserted—
 ''(3) In subparagraph (1)(d), ''the prescribed term'' means—
(a) in relation to England and Wales, where the offence is a summary offence, 51 weeks,
(b) in relation to England and Wales, where the offence is triable either way—
(i) for offences committed before the commencement of an order under section 139(a) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (power to increase general limit on magistrates' power to impose imprisonment), 12 months, and
(ii) for offences committed after that commencement, 18 months or, if less, the maximum term of imprisonment to which the offender would be liable on conviction on indictment of the offence,
(c) in relation to Scotland and Northern Ireland, three months.''
Slaughterhouses Act 1974
 4 In section 38(5) of the Slaughterhouses Act 1974 (c.3) (maximum penalties to be prescribed by regulations), the words ''or imprisonment for a term of three months or both'' are omitted. 
Anatomy Act 1984
 5 (1) Section 11 of the Anatomy Act 1984 (c.14) (offences) is amended as follows. 
(2) In subsection (7), for ''3 months'' there is substituted ''the prescribed term''.
 (3) After that subsection there is inserted—
 ''(7A) In subsection (7), ''the prescribed term'' means—
(a) in relation to England and Wales, 51 weeks,
(b) in relation to Scotland, 3 months.''
Environmental Protection Act 1990
 6 (1) Section 141 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (c.43) (power to prohibit or restrict the importation or exportation of waste) is amended as follows. 
(2) In paragraph (g) of subsection (5), for ''six months'' there is substituted ''the prescribed term''.
 (3) After that subsection there is inserted—
 ''(5A) In subsection (5)(g), ''the prescribed term'' means—
(a) in relation to England and Wales, where the offence is a summary offence, 51 weeks,
(b) in relation to England and Wales, where the offence is triable either way—
(i) for offences committed before the commencement of an order under section 139(a) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (power to increase general limit on magistrates' power to impose imprisonment), 12 months, and
(ii) for offences committed after that commencement, 18 months or, if less, the maximum term of imprisonment to which the offender would be liable on conviction on indictment of the offence,
(c) in relation to Scotland and Northern Ireland, six months.''
Regulatory Reform Act 2001
 7 (1) Section 3 of the Regulatory Reform Act 2001 (c.6) (limitations on order-making power) is amended as follows. 
(2) In paragraph (b) of subsection (3), for ''six months'' there is substituted ''the prescribed term''.
 (3) After that subsection there is inserted—
 ''(3A) In subsection (3)(b), ''the prescribed term'' means—
(a) in relation to England and Wales, where the offence is a summary offence, 51 weeks,
(b) in relation to England and Wales, where the offence is triable either way—
(i) for offences committed before the commencement of an order under section 139(a) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (power to increase general limit on magistrates' power to impose imprisonment), 12 months, and
 (ii) for offences committed after that commencement, 18 months or, if less, the maximum term of imprisonment to which the offender would be liable on conviction on indictment of the offence, 
jf13Ý(c) in relation to Scotland and Northern Ireland, six months''.'.—[Hilary Benn.]
 Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill. 
 Question proposed, That the Chairman do now report the Bill, as amended, to the House.

Hilary Benn: I would like briefly to say a few words of thanks; first, to you, Mr. Illsley, and to your co-Chairman Mr. Cran, for what has been without exception the helpful and efficient way in which you have enabled the Committee to conduct its business. I use my words with care and feeling, because you have enabled us to give proper consideration to all the matters that needed to be debated and have done so with a style that has helped the Committee to do its work. All members of the Committee will be grateful to you.
 I thank the Whips, the Clerk and the Hansard reporters for respectively organising, charting and chronicling our progress. I thank the police and the Doorkeepers for dealing with the Divisions. I have done my best to keep the number to a minimum and have had some success. I thank all the officials from both the Home Office and the other Departments for the outstanding support that they have given me—and indeed the Committee—through their regular flow of correspondence. When Committee members have felt that they have been missing the warm pleasures of the Committee, there has always been a letter in the post from me to keep everyone on their toes. I would particularly like to thank Lorraine Rogerson, the Bill manager, and her team for the superb job that they have done. 
 I also thank the parliamentary draftsmen and women, who have already had a plug during our proceedings; we have certainly kept a lot of them occupied. Finally, I thank the members of the Committee. I can say, without any fear of contradiction, that I have never been on a Committee like it in my life, for a variety of reasons. I can safely say that the Bill emerges a better Bill, even with the things that we have yet to do, because of the contribution made by all members of the Committee. 
 A particular feature of the Committee has been the extent to which the Government Members have contributed in an active way our consideration of the Bill. That could not have been otherwise, because on the first morning I walked into the Committee I was conscious of the expertise and experience with which I was surrounded, and we have had the benefit of that over the past two and a bit months. 
 I believe that, as a result of those contributions, the Bill is a better Bill, and I am grateful to colleagues for their contribution. The Bill will make important changes to the criminal justice system, which I hope will help it to work more effectively. As it succeeds in doing that, it will also help to develop greater 
 confidence in the system, the importance of which has been a feature of many of the contributions made by Committee members during our deliberations.

Dominic Grieve: I echo the sentiments expressed by the Minister. I thank all the officials who have helped: the Clerks, the Hansard writers, you, Mr. Illsley, Mr. Cran, and also Mr. Pike, who chaired two of our Committee meetings because of the length of the proceedings.
 It has been a most enjoyable Committee. Personally, I should thank, or rather apologise to, the parliamentary draftsmen and women who worked on the Bill. I am conscious that at times I have exercised them—sometimes in a bad way. Nevertheless, it is the lot of the Opposition constantly to raise points of which 99 per cent. turn out to be bad, but as long as there is one good one we shall continue to do that. 
 I also thank my Opposition colleagues, and in particular my Conservative colleagues, who have supported me. Without my hon. Friend the Member for Woking, I could not have done the job of scrutinising the legislation. 
 There is no doubt that the Bill has been, with one or two exceptions, well scrutinised. The exceptions are unfortunate, and I hope that lessons can be learned from that for the future. I say that while at the same time almost lavishing praise on the Government Whip, who seems to me to have done a superb job. The exceptions to scrutiny are not his fault but to some extent the fault of the system. 
 I tend to the view that that is because, a bit like the Northern Ireland peace process, there still remains an element of historical mistrust about whether agreements will be observed. However, I believe that the Minister will have gauged, from the way in which the Committee has been conducted—following on from my own experience during consideration of the Proceeds of Crime Bill—that I am willing to see programming work properly. I believe that if it does work properly, it can be a powerful tool for good scrutiny, while at the same time ensuring that business passes through the Committee in a reasonable period. 
 It is, however, unfortunate that there are some areas that we have not been able to consider, and that we will have to rely on Report, which is inadequate, or on the other place to do that. I suspect that in the other place the scrutiny will be very detailed. My message for the Government, therefore, is that, although we have scrutinised the Bill carefully, the alterations that we have made to it so far have not been considerable. However, the Government have further opportunities to take account of what we have said. Certainly they will have to argue hard in another place about some of their proposals. 
 If consensus could be achieved on a Bill that the Home Secretary has said he wants to see as a model that will not be tampered with for some years to come, and if the Government were to consider pragmatically some of the anxieties that have been expressed, they could go a long way towards dealing with them while leaving the main thrust of the Bill intact, and in my view enhanced. That is my plea to them. 
4.45 pm
 I hope that it is not improper to say this, but it should be acknowledged that the Minister and his colleagues have been models of courtesy. One day, the Minister's father sat at the back of the Room. Mindful of the short overlap when his father and he were present in the House, one was left with the sensation that it was not so much a chip off the old block as the old block itself. As was said of the younger and elder Pitt, the Minister has brought all the courtesy, charm and consideration that we associated with his father to the Committee's work. He has also brought a willingness to engage in proper debate by looking at the details without disappearing, as there is a tendency to do in the House, into mere rhetoric when he could not think of a further argument. 
 I thank the Minister for his courtesy and we look forward to Report, when we can further improve the Bill. I hope that it is what the Home Secretary and we want it to be: a Bill that will stand the test of time.

David Heath: I apologise for the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey is not present. He is giving the Shaftesbury memorial lecture at Harrow school.

Ian Lucas: Are there any tickets?

David Heath: Such an august establishment deserves my hon. Friend's wisdom.
 The end of a long, complicated Bill is like the BAFTA awards, because everybody has to thank everybody else ad nauseam. I do not want to break with that tradition. I thank you, Mr. Illsley, your co-Chairman and the cast of supporting actors that have made this Committee so effective in its considerations. I want also to thank other members of the Committee for the way in which they have approached the Bill. 
 As the hon. Member for Beaconsfield has said, the Committee has been excellent. The Government Back Benchers have been the most well-qualified and intimidating whom I have experienced. One could feel the invisible forces of legal scrutiny attacking one's every word. That is good, and I thank those Government Members for their engagement. 
 The hon. Member for Nottingham, North has veered from rampant populism to sound common sense with alarming regularity. His contribution to the Committee has been important. 
 I do not know the appropriate adjective for the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann), but the Bassetlegal approach to drugs legislation has been important. I embarrassingly found myself in agreement with the hon. Members for Beaconsfield and for Woking. I do not know what that suggests for the future of home affairs legislation, and I find it a difficult concept to agree on home affairs issues with Conservative Front Benchers—but they have moved, not us. 
 The hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) made some important observations. As has been said, the Minister and his colleagues have constantly engaged with the debate, which is all that Opposition Members can ask. We know that his flexibility of 
 movement is limited, but he has been constantly engaged with our arguments and has been prepared to reflect on them. He has made a substantial contribution to the work of the Committee, for which I thank him, even where we disagree—and we do disagree on fundamental issues that affect various parts of the Bill. We will have to argue those out on the Floor of the House and in another place—they have been clearly mapped out. Nevertheless, the Committee has done its work assiduously and well. That is the most that one can expect from a Standing Committee.

John Heppell: May I make a brief contribution in the manner of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey? I shall try to squeeze it into two hours. I know that you know, Mr. Illsley, that I started this Committee the same height as my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North, with not a grey hair on my head—at times it has been quite an ordeal. I thank you for your experience and wisdom; the Clerk, who has given me excellent advice all the way through; and all the supporting cast.
 I recognise that we have the country's future Law Lords sitting along the back row. That can be intimidating. I had wondered what heinous sin I had committed in some past life to be surrounded by so many lawyers, then I realised that my hon. and learned Friends have been helpful throughout and have made a valuable contribution. Most of my trouble came from my not-so-learned Friends. I remember thinking, when we celebrated my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North becoming Back Bencher of the year, that he was making a bid to be Back Bencher of the decade the way he was going. He has been helpful in touching on things that we needed to debate. 
 I want to put right one thing that has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown. The pagers are supplied by the Whips Office. I do not want anybody to be under any illusion that they ever go wrong. I was worried when he told me that there was something wrong with his pager this morning. People without pagers tend to go wandering through the Lobbies with any Tom, Dick or Harry, so I thought that I should check on it. I put it on record that the Whip's pager is in complete working order, and I have some advice for my hon. Friend. When one sets the alarm, it is best to set it for March—it seldom works when it is set for February. Really, all the Back Benchers, on both sides, have played a valuable role in the Committee, and I thank them. I know that I am sometimes quite ratty, especially with my own side. 
 I want to thank the Solicitor-General and the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Mr. Wills), who played a very good supporting role for the Minister—everybody recognises that he has shouldered the major burden. In many respects, the fact that this has been a good Committee has been due to him. His style, his courtesy and the way in which he has dealt with Committee members has rubbed off on the rest of the Committee. The hon. Members for Beaconsfield and for Woking treated the Committee with equal courtesy, and it has been excellent. 
 I save my final remarks for my opposite numbers in the Tory and Liberal Democrat Whips Offices. I was able to gain a number of concessions for Third Reading and extra time because I was able to argue that both of them had been reasonable and had co-operated in the running of the Committee. If things were good, it was because it was a joint effort. There is a story being peddled around that the hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) is liable to be the Chief Whip in the next Conservative Government and that I am trying to ensure that I get my knighthood by pandering to him. That is completely untrue—I am not prepared to wait 35 years for a knighthood.

Eric Illsley: Before we rise, I want, on behalf of Mr. Cran, Mr. Pike and myself, to thank all hon. Members for their kind comments. It has been a pleasure to chair the Committee. I also thank the hon. Member for Beaconsfield and my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North for arranging three days for Report stage. That gives me three days off the Whip, and I give them my special thanks for wringing that concession from the powers that be.
 I thank all hon. Members for their conduct throughout. The debate has been of excellent quality, and it was undertaken with good humour—as has been apparent up to the last. On behalf of my two colleagues, I thank you for that. 
 I echo hon. Members' thanks to the Doorkeepers, the police, the Hansard writers, the Clerks and everyone else involved. In particular, I thank the Clerk, Liam Laurence Smyth. On the first day on which the Committee sat, he received notification of a promotion, but for some reason—the balance of his mind was probably impaired—he decided to stay. You have provided excellent advice to me and to the Committee, and I thank you, Liam. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Bill, as amended, to be reported. 
Committee rose at four minutes to Five o'clock.